Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

40 years ago - Clay v. United States

Posts

I don't understand why if the slavery is equally distributed among the masses you people would find it more acceptable. Military conscription is simply a barbaric form of slavery that should be outlawed.

Slavery is uncompensated, if you're drafted you still get paid.

Incorrect. Slaves can still receive compensation. In fact it happened plenty back in the day. They aren't suddenly free because the person forcing them to work gives them a dollar.

Unless you want to claim that draftees are paid several orders of magnitude less than their voluntary counterparts, I think we can safely ignore the technicality there (which, though, I will give you is correct).

Also, its only a fantasy in that it doesn't exist in the US. Similar systems exist in other countries.

Making everyone take 2 years off between high school and college won't kill your country. Not to say that Vietnam is a good place to use your pre-college draftees, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that's not really the discussion at hand.

No, paying someone is only one part of making sure someone isn't enslaved. There is a property aspect, which doesnt happen in the draft, and numerous rights that slaves do not have but dratees do. These things are distinctive in my head.

Slaves were given numerous rights in various societies. That you think they're different doesn't make them so.

My arguments in favor of a draft based on what a draft should be like as opposed go how they have been instituted in the past, which you and I both agree, in the past the draft has been horribly unfair, unequal, and unacceptable.

That your for a fantasy doesn't make that fantasy possible. Nor does your fantasy render me incapable of believing in the constitution as a valid legal document.

Unless you want to claim that draftees are paid several orders of magnitude less than their voluntary counterparts, I think we can safely ignore the technicality there (which, though, I will give you is correct).

The technicality that it is still slave labor done for people who would rather not do it themselves? Tell me, what's the dollar amount it's okay to force people to kill other people against their will?

Also, its only a fantasy in that it doesn't exist in the US. Similar systems exist in other countries.

I'm aware. I'm also aware that it's an incredibly small number of countries. I'm acutely aware that none of those countries are America right now.

Making everyone take 2 years off between high school and college won't kill your country. Not to say that Vietnam is a good place to use your pre-college draftees, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that's not really the discussion at hand.

The American draft exists for times of war.

It doesn't exist to give young people a chance to get out in to the world, get some experience, save some cash, and learn some discipline.

Well no we don't have the draft, it was abolished after the vietnam war, in part due to the unjust nature of the draft. However, that doesn't mean it can't come back. Hopefully we don't have to fight a war that requires a draft. Fingers crossed.

What we do have are selective service numbers every eighteen year old male in America is supposed to have, just in case the draft comes back.

No, he shouldn't have. But the draft also ruined people that didn't resist it. I had a grandpa that was in WW2 (drafted) and one that was drafted but was not medically cleared.

Military grandpa got fucked up by war. Drafted but rejected Grandpa got mocked and made fun of by people for being a 'failure' and lived with survivor's guilt for the rest of his life when friends of his didn't come back from the war, even though he didn't do anything wrong.

It was because of my mom's experience with his guilt and the draft that she told us that if a draft were to ever occur, she was going to drug us and throw us in the trunk of a car and we were going to wake up the next day in Canada whether we wanted to fight or not. And I think she was dead fucking serious.

The process just serves to chew up as many young men as it can and spit them out.

There's nothing to disagree on. Giving slaves money doesn't make them not slaves. Giving them a few rights doesn't make them not slaves. The only thing you've proposed doesn't exist in America, yet you contend not believing in that fantasy means a person can't believe in the constitution which is absolutely baffling.

What about Ali's civil disobedience? Should he have been arrested?

I don't think anyone should for any reason. If you can't find people to fight your war you should strongly reconsider why it's being fought. Or go yourself if it's so important.

I'm thinking along the same lines. legally and morally, there was no reason to arrest Ali. But it brings up a lot of issues about civil disobedience for me. Part of me, the lawyer side says, well you break the law, that's that, despite the noble cause. The other side says "unjust laws deserve breaking". A little conflicted.

Do you think the draft was okay for a time like WWII? Just wondering (i'm guessing no)

The draft was not okay for WW2. That war was definitely fought by the Allies with the idea that "oh well, we can just draft more after this offensive". They were openly being used as lab rats to test new weapons and modes of transportation and battle insertion. So many men died before they even saw battle.

I'm going to reiterate Quid's point/contention that because someone is being paid, he/she is not a slave. Slaves can be, and have been, paid and granted a pittance of rights. Just look at oh, well, the majority of civilizations that have implemented some sort of slave economy.

A military draft can very much become institutionalized slavery, and if you're butthurt over that prospect because of a misguided sense of patriotism you should probably re-evaluate some things philosophically.

Edit- Also I agree with Feral's point that there needs to be a more aggressive expansion with funding and promoting civilian service organizations like Americorps, in order to get people to notice that there are more options than "go into the military or go to college/learn a trade." I am actually going to be doing an americorps contract this summer, and hopefully a year-long one following the seasonal one!

Well once again quid you've posted what I've said out of context, my argument was never money as the only distinction between slaves and free people, it was one of many distinguishing features between the two. But whatever. I guess I could rattle on a lot of distinctions that exist like religious rights, rights to due process, fair representation, legal counsel, voting, the right to marry, right to a trial. (there are more rights) All of these things service members (draftees or not) have, but slaves generally did not have, particularly slaves in america.

My argument is that if you believe in the constitution then you have to accept that congress has the authority to institute a draft, like it or not. The Moral issue, which is what you are arguing, is wholly separate from my constitutional justification for the draft. The constitution says a lot of things, back in the day it allowed slavery. Back in the day I would have to accept that, much as our founding fathers did. That doesnt mean I couldn't also be morally against slavery.

Feral: back to your banality of evil argument, I am conflicted as to what should happen there. The government should always provide outs for a situation like this. If it doesn't do so, then civil disobedience in my mind is justified. Is the disobedience punishable, i have serious quandries about that.

Well once again quid you've posted what I've said out of context, my argument was never money as the only distinction between slaves and free people, it was one of many distinguishing features between the two. But whatever. I guess I could rattle on a lot of distinctions that exist like religious rights, rights to due process, fair representation, legal counsel, voting, the right to marry, right to a trial. (there are more rights) All of these things service members (draftees or not) have, but slaves generally did not have, particularly slaves in america.

They are still unfree labor. That is slavery. That you give your slaves rights doesn't make them not slaves. Get over it.

My argument is that if you believe in the constitution then you have to accept that congress has the authority to institute a draft, like it or not. The Moral issue, which is what you are arguing, is wholly separate from my constitutional justification for the draft. The constitution says a lot of things, back in the day it allowed slavery. Back in the day I would have to accept that, much as our founding fathers did. That doesnt mean I couldn't also be morally against slavery.

Currently, yes, it does make it law. No one denied that. What you said was

As to the draft in general: There are simple statements like "Freedom ain't free" and "die for your country" and "Not my war" and "Fuck the draft" but to me it boils down to this: If the draft was validly instituted and is equal in its determinations, then the government has rendered its obligation to ensure due process (notice this is a procedural issue not substantive) and has validly executed its authority to draw troops for the US military. If you believe in the Constitution you should believe in that as well.

This has failed to ever, ever happen. I believe in the constitution. I do not believe the draft has ever been fairly implemented. In fact, it hasn't! See: Women.

I didn't say that the draft ever was fairly implemented either Quid. In fact, I am pretty sure, MULTIPLE times i said that in the past its been implemented unfairly, and I guess to reiterate my prior point: unconstitutionally.

Also, unfree labor does not a slave make, I guess if I used whatever hazy definition of slavery you seem to have, a mcdonalds worker is a slave. To me slavery encompasses a general separation of society denying the slave class from full and meangingful participation in the citizenry either economically or substantively. What you keep referring to as "Some rights" are generally the kinds of rights slaves do not have:

Freedom of worship, denied to most slaves
Voting: Ha!
Juries: Nope
Due Process; Fundamentally not given to slaves
Equal protection: They wouldn't be slaves if they got equal protection

So again, we agree to disagree: Fundamentally about what a slave is. Apparently to you military service = slavery, or at least mandatory military service.

And also you can drop that I claimed you dont' believe in the constitution. I never said that, my argument about the constitution is one of congressional authority.

Freedom of worship is in fact respected to the degree available for a military environment, my guess is you are thinking the Goldman v. Weinberger case where a serviceman was denied the ability to wear a yarmulke. There the issue was about accoutraments to religious worship and not the ability to worship on its face, which, the court recognized is protected for service members.

Courts martial do in fact require due process, (if you want cites I can get them) but that isn't the point, the point is that when you're a slave, you don't get process period; see dredd scott. Slaves get next to no, if any rights. I dare say any "rights" they may have aren't similar in any part to the rights service members enjoy, voluntary or otherwise.

The research is about some other conscientious objector cases and I'm trying to see the differences, those ones were for non religious conscientious objector status but I'm blankingo nthe case names so i'm going through old notes

As to the OP, i didn't get that on the first pass, and I wasn't able to read the particulars of the case yet (when Feral said poltiical and religious I didn't connect that to mean conscientious objector, my bad)

I'm not entirely sure what the local draft board was thinking when it denied his application, considering at that time religious protection was at its zenith in the Court.

I can answer this. He was black and muslim. He also spoke his mind and while not the speaker many others were, he spoke out about civil rights. And he spoke often. I know exactly what went through the draft board's mind. They were getting rid of an uppity *bong*.

Yeah, Thomamelas, i don't disagree there was some pretty, right below the surface, racism aimed at Ali (Muslim AND BLACK awww hell nah) Still in a quandry as to what should happen legally in his situation.

0·

Thomamelas Locks are like pretty ladies. You need to practise to know them. Registered Userregular

Yeah, Thomamelas, i don't disagree there was some pretty, right below the surface, racism aimed at Ali (Muslim AND BLACK awww hell nah) Still in a quandry as to what should happen legally in his situation.

It's CO on religious grounds. So you treat him like any other CO. The error wasn't on Ali's part, it was on the Draft Board's part.

Clipse you need not remind me of that, but on this point the supreme court dismisses out of hand the notion that a draft equates to slavery. Of course they also use a lot of rhetoric and lofty words to discuss how it is our duty and obligation to serve a country that provides us the rights we cherish. The opinion was written in 1917 and that seems to be the end of it. I doubt the court would hold differently though in a modern setting. (and probably not on a 5-4) The legality point, in my head is settled, ie legally draft != slavery. However, the morality issue is once again, where we agree to disagree.\

EDIT:
Thomelelas I agree Ali should have been given CO status, but since he was denied I wonder what to do with him then when all the legal options are out. Im 1/2 on the side of no punishment and 1/2 on the side of some kind of legal punishment for dodging the draft....

Clipse you need not remind me of that, but on this point the supreme court dismisses out of hand the notion that a draft equates to slavery. Of course they also use a lot of rhetoric and lofty words to discuss how it is our duty and obligation to serve a country that provides us the rights we cherish. The opinion was written in 1917 and that seems to be the end of it. I doubt the court would hold differently though in a modern setting. (and probably not on a 5-4) The legality point, in my head is settled, ie legally draft != slavery. However, the morality issue is once again, where we agree to disagree.

I'm not sure what "on this point the supreme court dismisses out of hand the notion that a draft equates to slavery" is supposed to mean, in lieu of what I said. The supreme court has, does, and barring some miracle will continue to sometimes make awful decisions. Further, citing them as some inarguable authority on whether or not the draft is slavery (in a lexical and, yes, moral sense) in a discussion on whether or not the draft should be eliminated because it is slavery is a wholly circular argument.

Edit: More to the point: I'm quite certain that if I forced you to work the fields for me under threat of imprisonment, my giving you a pittance of a paycheck and "allowing" you to retain some of your rights would not go far to convince you that you are not my slave.

Lets back up:
My argument is that the draft, as a legal matter, isn't unconstitutional, and that congress has the authority to call for a draft in the future. Walrus tried to tell me its slavery. In response i said the constitution doesn't see the draft as slavery. Because Supreme court says what the constitution is, and they say draft != slavery, my my premise is correct. And mind you, i've tried to separate the two types of arguments, the legal from the moral.

This matters to me because whether or not something is constitutional is the starting point for whether government action should happen, in my head.

You're argument is that the supreme court makes bad decisions and will continue to do so. Thats fine. But it doesn't remove the Supreme Court's discussion on what is and isn't constitutional.

Now as to the moral issue of a draft, and should there be a draft, part of my justification is that it is constitutional, part of it is duty and obligation to my country, and the other part is that the government has the authority to demand me to serve the country in times of war.

Clipse you need not remind me of that, but on this point the supreme court dismisses out of hand the notion that a draft equates to slavery. Of course they also use a lot of rhetoric and lofty words to discuss how it is our duty and obligation to serve a country that provides us the rights we cherish. The opinion was written in 1917 and that seems to be the end of it. I doubt the court would hold differently though in a modern setting. (and probably not on a 5-4) The legality point, in my head is settled, ie legally draft != slavery. However, the morality issue is once again, where we agree to disagree.

I'm not sure what "on this point the supreme court dismisses out of hand the notion that a draft equates to slavery" is supposed to mean, in lieu of what I said. The supreme court has, does, and barring some miracle will continue to sometimes make awful decisions. Further, citing them as some inarguable authority on whether or not the draft is slavery (in a lexical and, yes, moral sense) in a discussion on whether or not the draft should be eliminated because it is slavery is a wholly circular argument.

SCOTUS's insistence that, "congress has the power to raise and maintain armies" means "force people to be in them" as opposed to merely "pay for" or "is allowed to have at all" is based on literally nothing but their gut.

The possession of authority to enact the statute must be found in the clauses of the Constitution giving Congress power 'to declare war; ... to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; ... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.'

...

As the mind cannot conceive an army without the men to compose it, on the face of the Constitution the objection that it does not give power to provide for such men would seem to be too frivolous for further notice.

He even goes on to point out that the Articles of Confederation did not permit the Feds to have an army, and had to ask the states to volunteer a quota of their private forces. However, rather than interpret this as a reason for the constitution to permit the Fed to control it's own forces, he uses this to point out that since some of the states had draft laws in their constitutions, that the framers probably meant to put it in the constitution with the military clauses.

I guess they forgot. Forgot to itemize the thing in their constitution that the pro-draft states had in theirs. Because conscription was such a common sense notion that those states felt the need to explicitly permit it in their constitutions. Because it was obvious and implied, right? So, you know, why bother stating it clearly in the federal constitution that the federal government can conscript the citizens of the states into the army that it unilaterally controls.

I'll take your word for it, but when I said Air Force I meant specifically the Air Force, which has had serious issues with pressuring its cadets into professing evangelical Christianity, not to mention using federal money to do so.

Also, unfree labor does not a slave make, I guess if I used whatever hazy definition of slavery you seem to have

My definition is not hazy. My definition is: Forced to work against one's will. You're definition is: Not a slave based on what I think a slave probably wouldn't have as a right.

Freedom of worship, denied to most slaves
Voting: Ha!
Juries: Nope
Due Process; Fundamentally not given to slaves
Equal protection: They wouldn't be slaves if they got equal protection

None of these can't be afforded slaves. That you really really really think so doesn't make it so.

So again, we agree to disagree: Fundamentally about what a slave is.

No, you are wrong about what a slave is. Unless you can actually explain why any of the above prevents one from being a slave, you're merely making up a definition. Cause guess what, mine's covered by the dictionary. Yours is not.

Well walrus, nine very smart people who determine what the constitution says argue otherwise: Selective draft cases: 245 U.S. 366

Hey so is it cruel and unusual punishment to kill someone?

How about racial segregation?

Well, I'm sure you'll at least agree corporations are people.

You seem to be having trouble separating what the law is from what the law should be. Also, those 9 really smart people you're citing disagree all the time. So... that's kinda an awful argument you have in trying to call slavery not slavery.

Lets back up:
My argument is that the draft, as a legal matter, isn't unconstitutional, and that congress has the authority to call for a draft in the future. Walrus tried to tell me its slavery. In response i said the constitution doesn't see the draft as slavery. Because Supreme court says what the constitution is, and they say draft != slavery, my my premise is correct.

No, it is not.

This is going to be hard for you to grasp

but

The supreme court is wrong about what is and is not slavery. If they all said the sky was green they'd be wrong about that too.

Lets back up:
My argument is that the draft, as a legal matter, isn't unconstitutional, and that congress has the authority to call for a draft in the future. Walrus tried to tell me its slavery. In response i said the constitution doesn't see the draft as slavery. Because Supreme court says what the constitution is, and they say draft != slavery, my my premise is correct.

No, it is not.

This is going to be hard for you to grasp

but

The supreme court is wrong about what is and is not slavery. If they all said the sky was green they'd be wrong about that too.

I can't believe wet in the midst of a polite and at least somewhat productiveD&D thread!
Slavery is an awfully perjorative word. The way you're reading things, compulsory education is slavery. The draft is a democratic guarantee that we can provide for our collective security and that burdens should be shared equally. I think almost everyone on the board would prefer a draft not except people for education or their sex, but the point remains that when the state does it like this it isn't slavery, any more than the federal government imposing import duties is robbery.

Lets back up:
My argument is that the draft, as a legal matter, isn't unconstitutional, and that congress has the authority to call for a draft in the future. Walrus tried to tell me its slavery. In response i said the constitution doesn't see the draft as slavery. Because Supreme court says what the constitution is, and they say draft != slavery, my my premise is correct.

No, it is not.

This is going to be hard for you to grasp

but

The supreme court is wrong about what is and is not slavery. If they all said the sky was green they'd be wrong about that too.

I can't believe wet in the midst of a polite and at least somewhat productiveD&D thread!
Slavery is an awfully perjorative word. The way you're reading things, compulsory education is slavery. The draft is a democratic guarantee that we can provide for our collective security and that burdens should be shared equally. I think almost everyone on the board would prefer a draft not except people for education or their sex, but the point remains that when the state does it like this it isn't slavery, any more than the federal government imposing import duties is robbery.

You're making the comparisson that that indentured servitude to the state is OK because the state can lay claim to certain types of property?

The only case in which
Compulsory Military Service : Slavery :: Taxes : Theft

Is one where you subscribe to the notion that you are property, because that is what you are permitting the state to lay claim to. Not your stuff: You.

Education isn't labor. No one is actually being forced to work. Being forced to be somewhere and being forced to be somewhere and actually perform labor are two entirely different things.

The draft is a democratic guarantee that we can provide for our collective security and that burdens should be shared equally.

It is not democratic. It's done at random, much more easily avoided by the rich, and doesn't apply to women at all.

I think almost everyone on the board would prefer a draft not except people for education or their sex, but the point remains that when the state does it like this it isn't slavery, any more than the federal government imposing import duties is robbery.

I still want you to explain how stripping people of their freedoms and forcing them to work against their will is different from slavery. The excuses given so far have been "They get paid" which slaves have been before, "They have arbitrary rights" which is, well, arbitrary, and "Some judges said so" which as I pointed out, while it makes it currently legally classified as not slavery, doesn't keep it from being slavery in the real world.

And as Arbitrary pointed out if you want to equate people to property, your reasoning has already failed.

Lets back up:
My argument is that the draft, as a legal matter, isn't unconstitutional, and that congress has the authority to call for a draft in the future. Walrus tried to tell me its slavery. In response i said the constitution doesn't see the draft as slavery. Because Supreme court says what the constitution is, and they say draft != slavery, my my premise is correct.

No, it is not.

This is going to be hard for you to grasp

but

The supreme court is wrong about what is and is not slavery. If they all said the sky was green they'd be wrong about that too.

I can't believe wet in the midst of a polite and at least somewhat productiveD&D thread!
Slavery is an awfully perjorative word. The way you're reading things, compulsory education is slavery. The draft is a democratic guarantee that we can provide for our collective security and that burdens should be shared equally. I think almost everyone on the board would prefer a draft not except people for education or their sex, but the point remains that when the state does it like this it isn't slavery, any more than the federal government imposing import duties is robbery.

You're making the comparisson that that indentured servitude to the state is OK because the state can lay claim to certain types of property?

The only case in which
Compulsory Military Service : Slavery :: Taxes : Theft

Is one where you subscribe to the notion that you are property, because that is what you are permitting the state to lay claim to. Not your stuff: You.

Jury duty also slavery?

e: Really the idea that a country can make claims to its citizens isn't exactly novel. Any claim to my stuff is in some way a claim on me, since I work to get said stuff. A payroll tax is a claim on my labor.